Only valid for active forum users. Active means at least 30 postings within the last 30 days (no spam postings). This will automatically being checked at www.starbike.com shopping basket so make sure that you are logged in at the WW board!If there does not appear a WW discount position when you check out you do not have enough postings!

The issue is more than building something up. It is about the riders riding style and weight which will potentially cause the frame to flex and rub against the drive-train. Even with the spacer the clearance is incredibly tight. Plus what happens when one throws a chain?

There have been several rumors circulating around the rider forums concerning the compatiblility of the new Cervelo S3 frames with Campagnolo Super Record 11 drivetrain components. The issue arises from the clearance between the oversized chainstays of the S3 and the extremely low profile of the Campagnolo crankset. There is limited space between the inner surface of the chainring bolts and chainstays allowing very strong riders to flex the frame enough for the two to make contact in a hard sprint.

Similar issues are well known to experienced mechanics as they have been seen numerous times across a variety of frames and cranksets. The issue can be simply resolved by placing a 0.7mm spacer (the same width included with shimano 10 speed cassettes) behind the drive side bottom bracket cup. Campagnolo has accomodated for situations like this with the wave washer included behind bearing in the non-drive side cup. The wave washer compresses to allow for the imperfections in BB width inherent in the manufacture of all frames without causing excess tension on the bearings or lateral slop in the spindle.

Go to my website and see a successful build in our shop of an S3 with a full Super Record drivetrain. There is no excess drag on the bearings resulting from the small spacer installed behind the drive side cup and any possible clearance issues have been resolved by the additional 0.7mm between the chainstays and chainring bolts. Clearance issues are nothing new in the bike world and sound techniques exist to resolve the vast majority of them with no unwanted consequences. Minor issues like this are why high-end bicycle manufacturers like Cervelo only allow their products to be sold through a reputable dealer. SPAM Removed

Another guy who joined today, with one post claiming the problems with the S3 are minor. And there's another "random new member" over on the S3 vs. SLC-SL post who just happens to have the company line down pat...

What rubs me the wrong way with Cervelo is that we've heard very little from them about how they intend to fix the problem... indeed, even getting them to admit there is a problem is sort of an exercise in futility. And that's sort of scary, given the photographic evidence... look at that pic of the spacered crank. The tolerance is nil. Throwing a chain would be a major issue. The fact that they can look at that and say that will discuss with their marketing people whether or not a redesign is necessary speaks volumes about the company.

And this campaign of Cervelo folks posing as new members to spread word of mouth damage control is pointless and condescending... if anything it makes you guys look even worse. Man up, admit the mistake, and fix it. Easy-peasy.

There have been several rumors circulating around the rider forums concerning the compatiblility of the new Cervelo S3 frames with Campagnolo Super Record 11 drivetrain components. The issue arises from the clearance between the oversized chainstays of the S3 and the extremely low profile of the Campagnolo crankset. There is limited space between the inner surface of the chainring bolts and chainstays allowing very strong riders to flex the frame enough for the two to make contact in a hard sprint.

Similar issues are well known to experienced mechanics as they have been seen numerous times across a variety of frames and cranksets. The issue can be simply resolved by placing a 0.7mm spacer (the same width included with shimano 10 speed cassettes) behind the drive side bottom bracket cup. Campagnolo has accomodated for situations like this with the wave washer included behind bearing in the non-drive side cup. The wave washer compresses to allow for the imperfections in BB width inherent in the manufacture of all frames without causing excess tension on the bearings or lateral slop in the spindle.

Go to my website and see a successful build in our shop of an S3 with a full Super Record drivetrain. There is no excess drag on the bearings resulting from the small spacer installed behind the drive side cup and any possible clearance issues have been resolved by the additional 0.7mm between the chainstays and chainring bolts. Clearance issues are nothing new in the bike world and sound techniques exist to resolve the vast majority of them with no unwanted consequences. Minor issues like this are why high-end bicycle manufacturers like Cervelo only allow their products to be sold through a reputable dealer.

Simple, but will it work well. I bought the first Trek 5200 OCLV in 1992 which had an issue with the drivetrain that wasn't recognized upfront, until they discovered the need for a spacer... You should see my chainstay after a few bad chainsucks... chewed the paint and top carbon off badly... Trek wasn't that helpful, other than providing the spacer...

Anyways, people are ignoring the gorilla in the room... regardless of this SR-11 thing, the wheel thing is real and limiting... Regardless of what Cervelo says, some good (fast) wheelsets are definitely not compatible or possibly tight...

All this, along with other issues, has made me pass on an S3 that I had pre-ordered.

Sorry to bring this back up but i'd though you'd like to see a pic of the chainring bolts actually rubbing against the chainstay. And not on an S3 with SR, but an R3 sl with a UT CT crankset.

BB shell measured 67.8 - so within the limits specified by Campy. When I first installed the cranks the gap was about the thickness of a credit card. I though that was a bit too close so I called competitive (where i bought both frame and cranks May 2007) and was told this was normal and had nothing to worry about. no mention of adding a spacer when i spoke with their technical dept. As the shell width was within the specified limits I though nothing more of it and went on riding

As soon as I noticed the rub (which thankfully only removed the clearcoat) I quickly removed the cranks and added a spacer and have had no problem since. But i was still incredibly annoyed that i almost destroyed a $3000+ frame to what is clearly a problem.

Cervelo should have been more up front. I agree the spacer is a simple solution but I believe the extent of the problem was not well known early on, otherwise Competitive would have mentioned it to me. For some people this solution may well be too late